I mean, I’ve
been writing a column about city politics for well over a decade, getting all
sorts of things wrong in the process, and not once - not once, has the city’s
corporate communications office seen fit to write a news release explaining how
I didn’t know the difference between capital and operating budgets.
And then this
upstart Soknacki comes along, starts writing a column about city politics from
the perspective of a former budget chief, and not more than a year into his
stint, after filing this
inocuous little column, this shows up in my in-box:
Media
Advisory
August
22, 2007
Cutting
capital budget will not solve 2008 operating budget shortfall
A
column published in the August 17 edition of the York Guardian newspaper and
other Toronto Community News publications by David Soknacki (“Apocalyptic
visions for city”) incorrectly asserts that the proposed new Land Transfer Tax
and Personal Vehicle Registration fee will be used to pay for capital budget
expenditures.
Funding
from the new revenue sources, if approved, will support City operations. The
day-to-day operation of City services is paid for from the City’s operating
budget - the money dedicated to salaries and operating expenses such as rent,
fuel, electricity, equipment, etc. The City, like everyone else, must pay the
increased costs of fuel and electricity and other services when these costs
rise.
The
projects cited by Mr. Soknacki were approved by City Council in 2007 as part of
its capital budget deliberations, for which it has a five-year plan, also
approved by Council. The City’s financial difficulties have to do with its
operating budget * with a projected shortfall next year of $575 million. The
City cannot, by law, run an operating budget deficit.
Capital
funding, however, is much different. The City borrows money to pay for capital
projects such as roads, bridges, buildings and other facilities with long-term
funding requirements. Even if the projects cited by Mr. Soknacki were
cancelled, this would not solve the City’s 2008 operating budget shortfall.
With
respect to the City’s new garbage containers and 70 per cent waste diversion
plan, property taxes will not bear those costs. Residents will begin paying for
curbside collection directly next year, based on the size of garbage container
they opt for.
The release
goes on to say what a big city Toronto is, the way all the Toronto news
releases these days do - but the damage is done. David Soknacki, who last term
set just three Toronto budgets, got his own news release chiding him for not
knowing the difference between capital and operating budgets. And I, who have
been writing columns about far more than three city budgets for more than 10
years, did not.
I called the
former Scarborough councillor immediately, so that he could gloat. To my
disappointment, he did not.
“Why in
heaven’s name they would do this is absolutely beyond me,”he said. “I thanked
them for the increased visibility it gives me my ideas - it’s a great
opportunity for me to go back to the editors of the paper and ask for more
money because of the increased visibility of the column.”
Okay, he didn’t
gloat much. The news release did send him back to the books (or at least the
city’s own website) to check his numbers.
“I read the
column twice,” he said. “I stand by what I say - but to be 100 per cent sure I
am going to go back. I referred to a number of new projects that corporate
communications advises are part of the ‘07 budget. I’m surprised because I said
they were new items passed in the June council meeting, so I don’t understand
how they can be in a budget that’s already passed. I will spend the time
tonight to take a look at it. Other than that I was, um, surprised.”
Soknacki is
not, of course, the first one of the fourth estate here at city hall to have
enjoyed a corporate communications correction on the very political matter of
city finances. He’s just the greenest.
So I’ll bide my
time. David Soknacki, enjoy your correction.
If I play my
cards right, I bet I can swing two or three before month’s end…